Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Moronium

  1. No, not to me, Hazel. Read the next few posts after that if you want to see why I say that. In brief, mass is NOT weight, which is merely a function of your location. Your "weight" will be more on, say, Jupiter. If you stand on a scale, you will "weigh" less on a mountaintop than you would at sea level.. The amount of matter in your body will be the same, wherever you go, but your mass would vary.. Popeye seems to be upset with me for pointing this out, for some reason. Edited to correct error
  2. The first part of your excerpt is talking about "derived units." The last sentence says: Generally speaking, a "gram" (or kilogram) is a unit of weight. But I think that everyone agrees that mass is not weight. I guess you could say something like "matter measures mass, which is a measure of inertia." So matter becomes a "measure of a measure." But this is exactly the type of conceptual confusion I've been talking about. They also say that mass is a property of matter, but it's unclear to me what that is supposed to mean, exactly. That makes it sound like a "subpart" of matter,
  3. Just more to add to the confusion, eh? A clock "measures" time, but it is not time. What is mass measuring? Is it matter, or inertia? Scientifically speaking, it is inertia, not matter, the way I'm reading it. The M in F=MA, stands for mass, not matter. Now, they may go hand in glove, of course. The more matter you have, the more mass you have. But what is mass actually measuring? I'm not sure why you think this is a "silly argument," not a discussion. If anyone is "arguing" with you, it appears to be your own source (actually, both sources when wiki is included), not me. At
  4. Yeah, I saw that Popeye. Did you see the part I quoted? IT CAME FROM THE SAME EXCERPT OF YOURS.
  5. Popeye, your own quote is saying the same thing, isn't it? To wit: Mass is a "property of" matter (not matter itself) and mass MEASURES inertia, not matter per se.
  6. I've already asked this question: What doesn't it even mean to say that mass is a "property" of matter? Locke made a distinction between primary qualities (properties, really) and secondary qualities. http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/AS/knowledgeoftheexternalworld/Secondaryqualities.pdf In Locke's term, "mass" would be a primary quality. But then what? What is it?
  7. But the first sentence of your link says this, Popeye: It doesn't say anything about matter, or even measuring matter, there. But the introduction says this: . Mass "measures" resistance to accelation, not matter, according to these guys (and just about everyone else), scientifically speaking, anyway.
  8. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/21/the-dark-matter-crisis/#.XLP9hzBKjX5 And yet, after all these decades, any physicist who doesn't "believe in" dark matter is still considered to be a "rogue," know what I'm sayin?
  9. Naw, his "luck" came mainly from the deliberate choices of Democrats, who thought that a running a dog of a candidate like Hillary Clinton couldn't miss. They gave her complete control, and have lived to regret it.
  10. And therein lies the defect of the many pseudo-scientific speculations of modern physics. "Many worlds" interpretation of QM, multipicity of "universes," dark matter, string theory (in 11 "dimensions"), and the like (which abound). Such "untestable" theories have been "preserved" for many decades. Often these theories are presented as virtual fact. So much for the "scientific method," eh?
  11. Well, yeah, I guess I mean something like that. The orbiting moon "explanation" which I offered does not rely on mathematical symbolism, but instead uses "concepts" like "force," inertia, and gravity. Those are not tangible things which we can ever directly see--they are mental abstractions from what we see (and then think about), i. e., "concepts." But, more generally speaking, I was trying to distinguish between formal mathematical tautologies and everyday "common sense," I suppose. Having said that, I realize that few, if any, people in this forum recognize the distinction. Most here
  12. I'm not conversant in the details of GR, but from what I read, Einstein wanted to eliminate the concept of inertia, which he saw as a "defect," from physics. These days most physicists agree that his attempt to do so failed. https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath588/kmath588.htm I'm just throwing this in before Dubbo starts trying to analyze things with a geometrical interpretation of GR.
  13. Formalistically, this may be true, Dubbo. But, as a conceptual matter, what's your response to this assertion?:
  14. That's probably the most accurate thing you've ever said, Ralf. Carry on.
  15. So what you call a "visible illusion" slows time? But then it "becomes real," but only for one person? I read your words, Ralf, but you're right--the meaning of them is incomprehensible. What does the DRS do to time itself? You're still just talking about subjective perceptions, not time. As long as you think of "time" as changing, you are just an indoctrinated SR outcast. You still don't understand the basic problem with SR.
  16. I really know better than to bother, Ralf, but I''m kinda bored right now. Tell me, what possible connection is there between the DRS and "time slowing?"
  17. I'm sorry, but I don't have the credentials to intelligently discuss a paper like this. That said, I do have a general comment to make about it. I instinctively dislike the mechanistic, reductionistic premises which it appear to presuppose. Looking at the abstract suggests that an analysis in terms of "thermodynamics," "chemical environment," "available energy fluxes" and the like. That's all kinda interesting, I suppose, but wondering how such factors could explain all species of bacteria being "bilingual" and possessing both an intra and inter-species forms of communication. That
  18. The way I see it, the equation F=MA is just another example of how abstract "mathematical" symbols can easily become completely divorced from the essential concepts underlying them, which get forgotten. People look at the "F" and often start looking at it as a "single," self-sufficient representation of something. They can forget that the "F" is not a simple, uncomplicated thing. because it looks so simple. It's just a simple "F," that's all, and it's so easy to manipulate mathematically that way. It can easily be seen, mathematically, that M is "simply" F/A, and that A is "simply" F/M.
  19. You are actually making progress. Just not enough to prevent you from failing to seeing the forest because of the trees. The biggest tree of all is your megalomanic slavery to your own misconceived ideas. You'll never see past that one. If not for that, you might eventually stumble onto a path leading to a hilltop, where you could look down and see a forest rather than just a bunch of distracting trees. Until then, you'll never see the big picture.
  20. I have seen the argument made that inertia cannot be a force because an object "at rest" does not start moving. But consider a large boulder on the ground, not moving at all. But for the the "inertia force" supplied by the "mass" of the earth, the boulder would head straight to the earth's center at an ever-accelerating speed. It would just go through the earth's crust like it was air. Another way to look at it is that the "inertia" of the boulder is opposing the force of gravity, including the gravity of the moon, the sun, and all other matter. Without that force, it would move. The
  21. Well, yeah, Popeye, but that is quite consistent with the point, as I see it. What is an "unbalanced force?" It is essentially a "net force," right? Many different forces might need to be taken into consideration before you can arrive at a net (unbalanced) force. Like the force of friction, for example. Or "the force of inertia" for another, eh? Even if there are no "unbalanced" forces in play, and therefore no acceleration, there can still be a multiplicity of forces which are "acting upon" an object. Looking at it that way, you could say that the "force of inertia" is the force th
  22. Without what I'm now calling "the force of inertia," you couldn't even throw a baseball. It would just drop straight to the ground the second it left your hand. This is the same error the ancients made (and which Galileo corrected) when they concluded that it was "impossible" for the earth to be moving. Their argument was that if you threw a ball straight up into the air, it could not come "straight down" to you (as it does) if the earth were moving, because in that case you would have moved "out from under it" while it was in the air.
  23. By the way, Ralf, when you use the word "pubs," you reveal something I should have realized a long time ago. You're a damn Limey, aint ya? That explains a lot, right there.
  24. Like Awol, you just re-assert your conclusion. Where's the "storage device" with inertia? What is it? You don't put an oil barrel into your oil-burning furnace. You put in the oil, that's all. You're the one who can't see the difference.
  25. You have no idea of how to properly understand or apply "relativistic facts" either. Carry on, Ralf.
  • Create New...